First of all, "everything is reducible to algorithmic information" is an assertion. Unless you back it up, it sinks to the status of an "opinion." In order for you to back it up, you have to come up with a universal algorithm. But for you to do that, you must possess universal knowledge. Now, unless you can find a way to extricate yourself from the Universe, as it were to find and occupy some "Archimedean point" outside the Universe from which to observe it in toto, the only knowledge you have of the Universe is what you can view from "inside of it." That will necessarily be a partial view. And therefore, from the perspective of your position in space and time, you cannot know all of the Universe. Which by the way continues to evolve. So even if it were possible that you could know everything about the Universe at a particular point in spacetime, you would still not have universal knowledge. For the future may contain new elements -- and probably will.
Now perhaps you might say you can derive the entire Universe abstractly, i.e., not by means of observation, but via abstract mathematics. And you may well be able to derive a Universe thereby. But my question then would be: Would that derived Universe match up with the one we actually have in every detail, at every point in space and time, including the yet unmanifested future? On what could you base an affirmative answer?
And at the end of the day, would your algorithm describe the Universe -- or only you? How could you tell?
As for "the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead," I suppose you'd have to look at the correlation between increasing entropy and decreasing Gibbs free energy: At some critical threshold, life passes into non-life. Theoretically, that is the point at which the living organism "stops communicating"; i.e., ceases to successfully process information. I guess that would be your "measurable mathematical difference."
Or so it seems to me. FWIW.
Thanks for writing, tortoise!
This reminds me of the old argument against the kid who says that he KNOWS God does not exist.
The professor asks the kid if he knows everything there is to know.
The kid says "no."
The professor askes the kid if he knows half of everything there is to know.
The kid says "no."
The professor says, "Let's assume you DO know half of everything there is to know. What if proof of God is all in the OTHER HALF?"
p.s.: Please tell me why I am wrong to suspect that, in saying you believe the Universe is reducible to an algorithm, you are implying that the Universe is "designed." And then please tell me: How can an algorithmically-based Universe be a random process? Or is the algorithm itself a pure accident? In which case, it would seem to me you'd have a devil of a time trying to "reverse-engineer" it.
Everything is reducible to algorithmic information, so what are the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead? We have fuzzy heuristics for every day use, but what is the universal definition that I can use to measure anything?
/////////
The science of computer modeling is so new that there is trouble identifying the"known unknown" and the stuff we think we know-- but don't know.
There is a great deal of computer modeling work currently going on for molecules of both organic and inorganic chemistry. Because of the success of these models, this conversation would be greatly facilitated by some granular data which would establish what the differences are between the "shape", "force", "direction" and even "complexity" of these models.
From there one might go on to say something more general--but without the fuzziness-- about the difference between the living and the dead.
Everything is reducible to algorithmic information, so what are the measurable mathematical differences between something that is living and something that is dead? We have fuzzy heuristics for every day use, but what is the universal definition that I can use to measure anything?
/////////
The science of computer modeling is so new that there is trouble identifying the"known unknown" and the stuff we think we know-- but don't know.
There is a great deal of computer modeling work currently going on for molecules of both organic and inorganic chemistry. Because of the success of these models, this conversation would be greatly facilitated by some granular data which would establish what the differences are between the "shape", "force", "direction" and even "complexity" of these models.
From there one might go on to say something more general--but without the fuzziness-- about the difference between the living and the dead.
wow. good answer.
You could call it the Grand Unifying Assertion.